Hash v. Giacomazzi

Background

Lawrence G. Hash, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff and other individuals. The action was opened to pursue a claim concerning a Rules Violation Report issued by M. Giacomazzi on March 5, 2016. The report accused Hash of possessing a deadly weapon based on a razor blade found during a cell search.

Hash alleged that Giacomazzi searched his cell while Hash was in the shower, that the razor blade was planted, and that the report inaccurately stated that another officer participated in the search. Hash also alleged that he received inadequate notice of the charge, could not properly question witnesses at the disciplinary hearings, and was found guilty despite insufficient evidence. The rehearing resulted in a 360-day loss of good-time credits. Hash further alleged that the report and related actions were retaliation for his requests, grievances, and lawsuits involving prison staff.

Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed

Because Hash was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that the following claims were sufficiently pleaded:

- A procedural due-process claim based on inadequate notice and defects in the disciplinary hearings against Giacomazzi, Dorsey, Petrovic, Bloise, Covello, and Laniar. The court stated that these defendants could be liable for at least nominal damages. - A procedural due-process claim based on insufficient evidence against Giacomazzi, Dorsey, Petrovic, Bloise, and Covello. The court applied the rule that a disciplinary finding must be supported by at least some evidence in the record. - A First Amendment retaliation claim against Giacomazzi, Petrovic, Dorsey, and Bloise. The court found sufficient allegations that these defendants took adverse action because of Hash’s protected conduct and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

Claims Dismissed

The court held that Hash failed to state a due-process claim against defendants who allegedly investigated or gathered information but were not directly involved in issuing the challenged report or conducting the related hearings. The court also rejected claims against defendants involved only in later committee proceedings or administrative appeals because Hash did not adequately allege that their actions caused the challenged due-process violations.

The court likewise held that Hash failed to state retaliation claims against the remaining defendants. The court explained that the requests Hash identified as protected conduct were filed after the challenged report had been issued, so they could not have caused the earlier adverse action. Because Hash had previously amended his complaint, the court declined to grant leave to amend these pleading deficiencies. The claims against those defendants were dismissed for failure to state a claim.

State-Law Claims and Case Management

The court agreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hash’s state-law claims but ordered him to file a supplemental pleading identifying each defendant, describing that defendant’s role in the disciplinary matter, and identifying the specific state regulation allegedly violated. The supplemental pleading may not exceed 10 pages and must be filed within 28 days of the order. The order states that if Hash does not file it on time, the court will dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice and dismiss all remaining defendants. The court will also dismiss any remaining defendants against whom Hash has not stated a cognizable claim after the supplemental pleading is filed.

The court ordered service on Giacomazzi, Daryl Dorsey, D. Petrovic, P. Covello, and J. Laniar through the prison system’s electronic service process. It directed defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. It also changed the action’s filing date from February 12, 2020, to February 3, 2020.

Disposition

The action proceeds on the three categories of claims identified above. The order is a prisoner-complaint screening and case-management order; it does not decide the ultimate merits of the claims.